Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 3

For circulation to mature readers only

Bullshit
Reader please beware, as this is a very sensitive topic, but written with good humour and
serious intent for our common edification. Its best to read on (if you wish to) with an open
mind, and then see what you think of it. It also helps to know that this reflection is based on a
essay entitled On bullshit (1986), the New York Times Sunday Book Review (5 June 2005)
bestseller for the preceding week. It was by Harry G Frankfurter, a Professor of Philosophy
Emeritus at Princeton University. Therein, he defines the concept of bullshit, and analyses its
applications in the contexts of communication.1
What does bullshit really mean? The Oxford-English Dictionary (OED) defines bullshit simply
as rubbish, nonsense; = bull. It also defines it as a verb: to talk nonsense (to); also, to bluff
ones way through (something) by talking nonsense. Under its synonym, bull, the OED help-
fully defines: trivial, insincere, or untruthful talk or writing; nonsense.
Bullshit, then, either can be true or can be false; hence, the bullshitter is a man or a woman
whose main aim when speaking or publishing bullshit is to impress us with words that com-
municate an impression favorable to the speaker, without any concern for the truth of what has
been said. Likewise, the bullshitter is unconcerned with consistency between what he is saying
now, and whatever he has previously said.
Consequently, the bullshitter is faking things. But this does not mean he necessarily gets them
wrong (Frankfurt 2005:46 = PDF 11 f). He is communicating an impression that something is
being done or has been done, words that are neither true nor false, and so obscure the facts
(whatever he is saying, or what is being discussed) (61 = PDF 15).
We can see numerous examples of bullshit in, for example, religious talks. Even the best speak-
ers often given platitudinal (which is worse than boring) talks. However, because we love or
respect the speaker (this emotion is, in fact, often the basis of religious faith), we will blissfully
bleat sweet compliments to the speakers and to others when the talk is mercifully over.
Buddhist leaders, or those who see themselves as leaders, show boundless generosity when it
comes to complimenting other less illustrious speakers, too. After all, these speakers do draw a
crowd what is Buddhism, or any religion, without a crowd? So, even when the speaker tells a
bad or bawdy joke, a few in the audience would laugh because they knew better, and others
are compelled to laugh because others are laughing. We often lose ourselves in a crowd.
A bad speaker is never told how whats bad about his talk, or how he can improve himself. The
painful irony is that without any truthful feedback, those speakers will probably continue his
small talk before big crowds. No wonder no one really pays much attention during such talks,
and when handphones ring, they are politely, with relief, answer right in the midst of the talk.

1
Harry G Frankfurt, On Bullshit. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005 (booklet); also as article (PDF):
http://www.stoa.org.uk/topics/bullshit/pdf/on-bullshit.pdf. Further reading: G Pennycook et all, On the recep-
tion and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit, Judgement and Decision Making 10,6 Nov 2015:549-563,
http://journal.sjdm.org/15/15923a/jdm15923a.pdf.
Caveat lector

We could say that much of local Buddhism is rooted in the Confucian notion of saving face. 2
The faces of those in power and those speaking to crowds must be saved at any cost. After all,
Confucian filial piety teaches that it is not dishonest for a father to conceal a sons fault, and
the sons to conceal their fathers fault. It is said in the Analects that Duke of Sh (whom
Confucius criticizes), however, proudly states that his people were honest because they testi-
fied even against their own father who had stolen sheep. (Lunyu 13.18)3
Do such Confucian ideologies then justify our not telling the truth when our seniors or superiors
commit wrongs? The famous Lunyu 13.18 passage is Confuciuss response to Legalism (or rule
of law) by favouring rightness.4 However, this rightness was seen in terms of social hierarchy
and status, where those of lower status should defer to those of higher ones.
It is difficult to accept today that we are justified to hold back the truth even if it is a noble
lie for the benefits of others, even (or especially) when they are above (atas) us.5 Has this
kind of tradition been so ingrained into the local Chinese so as to withhold the truth, cosmetic-
ize it, or even lie, for the sake of saving face? Perhaps, such a social conditioning has given rise
to the notion of the Chinese yes or Chinese truth, especially in western discourse.6
However, the more mature Chinese are wise enough never to take others on the word level
or, even the face level. They, for example, try to outdo one another (often noisily) in a display
of generosity and kindness. Im only citing this as an example; there are many other examples
in other cultures, too. But being Chinese myself, it is surely politically correct to cite my own
culture as an example, rather than those of others.
Coming back to bullshitting. According to Frankfurt, the bullshitter simply doesn't care if he is
telling the truth or not. In contrast, the liar must know the truth, of what he is saying, and of
the matter under discussion, so that he can better conceal the truth from the listener or the
reader who is being deceived with the lie.
The bullshitter, on the other, will glibly use a truth, a lie, a half-truth, a non-fact, a white lie, or
whatever words can convey (or not) so long as it serves his purpose. For, his sole concern is
personal advantage, audience control amd exploiting others. Bullshit, then, is a far worse
enemy of truth than are lies. (33 = PDF 8)
Bullshit is not merely the promotion of wrong views, but also includes the misuse or misrepre-
sentation of right views. Hence, it is religious bullshit.7 The early Buddhist suttas are full of in-

2
On the issue of face (saving face and losing face), see SD 28.9a (3.4): ***
3
Lunyu 13.18, http://ctext.org/analects/zi-lu. Compare Aristotle, in the Nicomachean Ethics 1096a15,
where he famously criticizes his own teacher, Plato, thus: Where both are friends, it is right to prefer truth.
4
Traditional Chinese ; simplified ; pinyin: y.
5
A white lie may be acceptable is very special cases, such as when robbers demand where our loved ones or
parents are hiding, and we would surely not willingly tell the truth. However, it creates social and legal problems,
when it is the rule. Atas is local Malay slang for the snobs of the upper class.
6
See Amy Olberding (ed), Dao Companion to the Analects, Dordrecht: Springer, 2014:161 f.
7
An example of this is when, say, someone who believes in transcendental Buddhas and cosmic Bodhisattvas
claims that they exist just as you and I exist. Bur when asked how does he know that such beings actually exist,
he replies: We cannot say that they exist, or not exist, or both, or neither! See Anurdha S (S 22.86), SD 21.13.
They form part of the 10 points on which the Buddha is famously silent: see The unanswered questions, SD 40a.10.
For circulation to mature readers only

structions by the Buddha and his arhats reminding us to discern and avoid religious bullshit
teachings, even truths, that are useless or harmful and also that we should neither speak nor
practise bullshit, whatever does not bring us closer to awakening in this life, or does not bring
us true happiness here and now.
This is not to say that only what is taught in the early Buddhist texts is not bullshit (this may
well be a good guide, though), but that even such teachings can be wrongly quoted or falsely
quoted to promote some worldly, useless or harmful ends. The Internet, for example, often has
a thick and thorny undergrowth of fake Buddha quotes, sayings reflecting their authors
biases, views, or asininity, pushed into the Buddhas mouth. If their authors have ulterior
motives, such as promoting their own ego, or worse, to mislead Buddhists and others, then,
these are clearly bullshit truths that are worse than lies.
There is a real problem here: not many of us can really detect and reject bullshit in Buddhism
unless we are familiar with the early Buddhist texts and literature reflecting them. More likely,
we would happily click Like or Love or Wow to some bullshit that endorses our views, or which
we find amusing, or perhaps even delightfully shocking. Such bullshit is thus also a smear on our
own looking-glass.
Or, worse, we might simply pontificate that whatever bears even the word bullshit is just
that. Thus squinted, this reflection would still have not reflected any wisdom, and so be dump-
ed into the waste-basket of bullshit. Nevertheless, I suspect there are those who know or at
least want to know what bullshit is, and reject or correct them accordingly.8
R12 Revisioning Buddhism RR2
[an occasional re-look at the Buddhas Example and Teachings]
Copyright by Piya Tan 2016 05

8
For similar instructive readings, see Jason Holt (ed), The Ultimate Daily Show and Philosophy series, 2007 &
2013: http://philpapers.org/rec/WILTUD-2.

Вам также может понравиться